Fortifying Fear

UDM HOME RE:SEARCH HOME KNOWLEDGE HOME TITAN CONNECT

DSpace Home
→
University of Detroit Mercy Dissertation, Thesis, and Student Project Collections
→
Architecture Thesis Collection
→
View Item

Fortifying Fear

Holmes, Jason

URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10429/2567

Date: 2024-05-02

Abstract:

This investigation focused on the known relationship between fear and fortification, with fortification known as the instinctual response to a fear, either known or unknown. When examining the relationship that fear and fortification share, research led by framing concepts Control (Power), Perceived Safety, Risk (Danger), Fortifying, and Response, produced a known condition that fortification does not exist without fear. The literature about fear and fortification collectively describes fear as a “powerful motivator” for fortification. With precedents such as Michel Foucault’s analysis of Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon and a wide range of film typologies as a guide, a conclusion that fear is what directly leads to the need for fortification was drawn. Research questions that arose are: How does analyzing fortification through the lens of fear affect how we perceive space in the built environment? How does the outlook on fortification change across architectural typologies? How does risk perception affect fortification methods across varying scales? How can fortification benefit from fear? To attempt to answer these questions, using a qualitative methodology, this study employed cinematic studies, fear manipulation with both human-led and artificial intelligence-led design generations, built design installations, and other specifically crafted interventions. Each method explored what is known and unknown about fear and fortification. Through these methods, this study uncovered that what is known about fortification through the lens as a defense mechanism against fear is only one piece of the puzzle. Fear is a drive for fortification, but with fortifications serving a particular purpose in a specific happenstance, fear remains dominant. This study contributes information pertaining to the relationship that fear and fortification share, which put simply, is that fear and fortification are intertwined. The dynamic between being afraid for one’s safety and the desire to have control over your surroundings is a simple example of why the relationship between fear and fortification exists.

Description:

As you walked down the deserted street, a sense of foreboding settled over you like a heavy blanket. The feeling of being watched grew stronger with each step, sending shivers down your spine. Every shadow seemed to conceal a hidden threat. Every sound made your heart race faster. That creeping paranoia, the knowledge that someone was following you—that is fear. The general focus of this thesis investigation was representing the importance of fortification, but more specifically its connection/reliance on fear. The instinct to fortify, to defend against perceived threats, is a fundamental human response. This research analyzes the reasons why fortification is necessary, exploring its impacts on individuals, communities and narratives. Beyond its functional benefits, fortification introduces a distinctive element: fear. Fear describes the heightened awareness of an immediate, objective threat. This investigation set out to unravel the intricate relationship between fortification and fear, dissecting their psychological, spatial, and perceptual dimensions. The history of fortifications around the world provides an essential narrative for why fortification is important as a response to fear. Fortifications allow a counteractive measure against a known/perceived fear as well as an ‘unknown fear’. From a historical viewpoint, one can observe the intense relationship that fear shares with built and unbuilt fortifications, as well as vice versa. Understanding why people instinctively fortify stems from the threats of the past. Precedents such as the Great Wall of China, the Berlin Wall, Hadrian’s Wall, and the Atlantic Wall were studied through the lens of a particular fear to illustrate how fears shaped societies in a cause-and-effect manner. To thoroughly analyze the relationship between fear and fortification, framing concepts were created to guide the investigation. Each concept was created through various literature studies. Perceived Safety: psychological emotion towards external stimuli in a particular environment/fear of crime (Zeng et al. 2023). Control (Power): individuals’ perceptions of their ability to influence outcomes (Goodstadt et al. 2016). Risk (Danger): the dangers that have a calculable probability (Bauman 2006). Fortifying: the act of strengthening or making secure (Society of American Military Engineers 1919). Response: A reaction to an event that allows for adaptation as the potential risk increases (Dunkel 2018). With the intention of representing the relationship that fear and fortification share, several research questions were asked. To understand how fear influences our perception of space in the built environment when considering fortified structures: How does analyzing fortification through the lens of fear affect how we perceive space in the built environment? To explore how different architectural styles and typologies influence the perception and implementation of fortification strategies: How does the outlook on fortification change across architectural typologies? To understand how varying levels of perceived risk impact the choice and implementation of fortification methods, from personal to urban scales: How does risk perception affect fortification methods across varying scales? To investigate how fear can be leveraged as a motivator to enhance fortification strategies, potentially leading to more effective and resilient built environments: How can fortification benefit from fear? The value of this thesis investigation is in helping others understand or recognize that fortification is a method that deserves further understanding, in particular that the reasoning behind the action to fortify, fear, is something that has a profound effect on the action of fortification, and acknowledging that the type of relationship changes the way others can view connections between a cause and effect relationship. The thesis investigation’s research and methods allow for others to comprehend the importance that fortification has on the negation/manipulation of fear as well as the significance of why fortification itself is important today. Based on the findings, there is an overarching need to embrace fear through the action of fortifying. Using the nature of a boundary as an analogical starting point when discussing the action to fortify as a means of alleviating fear alongside controlling power, one can not only observe how fortifications provide a means to counter fear but can also begin to understand what this information can do for a society in the long run. To thoroughly investigate all aspects pertaining to the thesis investigation, several key methods were undertaken, each with a particular goal or intention. The overall methodology utilized was qualitative with specific instances such as cinematic studies, site visits, installations etc., having a different intended outcome. With every study, more conclusions were drawn. Once a research question was developed, investigations were spawned to properly analyze a particular aspect. For instance, the two built installations each highlighted aspects of fortification in separate investigations with the desire-led installation understanding fortification as it connects to the relationship between risk and reward and the fortification experiment demonstrating how fortification levels can be viewed as problematic/unnecessary in the grand scheme of things. Another example is framing cinematic expressions in a way that narrates how the relationship between fear and fortification is shown through different lenses. When discussing the critical relationship that fear has on fortification, it is important to note that there is a significant counterargument that can argue effectively about the unnecessary aspect of fortification which is the acknowledgement (or lack thereof) that fear is becoming less of an importance today. What seems to be is that there are things, such as the invisible boundary, that society does not recognize as something impactful enough to cause alarm. When one chooses to be ignorant of a fear, there is no need to fortify against said fear. This in turn negates the investigation from one angle of choosing to ignore fear as a facet of fortification due to its lessening importance today. Highlighting the evidence that societies that do not limit growth based on fear is a prime instance in illustrating how the disillusionment of fear is a counterargument to the thesis investigation. Another critique is that it has not investigated the opposite of fear (courage/bravery/pleasure) nor the difference between fortifying out of fear versus out of desire. There is a clear distinction that needs to be addressed when discussing the relationship that fear has on fortification. Viewing it as a cause-and-effect relationship essentially answers the question as to why fortification is important but does not necessarily give prominence to how said fortification is represented when fear is not the reason to fortify. The limits to this thesis investigation are that it focuses solely on fear as a driving factor in the construction of fortifications, whether physical or not, but does not give clarity on the aspects of fortification that do not revolve around fear. There are actions produced that directly correlate to fear, such as wanting control, feeling safe etc., but there is an evident lack of the relationship that fear does not have on fortification. There is also a need for development of the opposing side of fear due to the lack of information being provided to construct a well laid out argument. As a reflection on the thesis investigation through the lens of its value to the field, there is a key understanding that was discovered. When analyzing fortification through its connection to fear, the action of embracing fear through fortifying is something that lacks representation. People understand that fear should be taken control of, but there is a growing sense of the choice to remain oblivious to the fears that are continuing to take hold on communities, individuals and narratives. Through the acknowledgement of the boundaries that divide us, fear and fortification become intertwined and therefore controllable in a profound manner.

Show full item record